tv [untitled] November 8, 2014 8:30am-9:01am PST
go throw the nebulous procure of legal listing a unit to the mayors derivative is the correct authority for san francisco at this point at this point it's not right to because the drive for 3 units or more if you think about it the policy two units or less is an intimate setting so when a person doesn't want another person living in their garage or behind that the mayors driver didn't the trustee has done everything under the law get a permit over the counter
and move forward a termination for a demolition of an illegal unit he's followed the law this has been interfered with by the tenants and then she filed for a discretionary review i'm not clear about the persuading i know this proceeding was continued because of the planning commission discretionary review i want to show you exhibit b the inspector michael smith did this beautiful analysis he did a beautiful analysis he has aerial shots and description his recommendation to the mr. haney committee don't grant discretionary review and approval that his reasons one
the mayors driver the current authority applies to 3 legal units or more and two for the landlords voluntarily decision to go throw the legalization process the landlord decides to do it to encourage it and they can create legal units out of they're old illegal units and everybody wins more housing but it's not for a landlord that didn't want to go through the process and pay for the process and certainly not the tenant to force the landlord to go through the legalization process and that's what mr. smith is noting this owner is a trustee the out-of-towners they have no deserve to go through the legalization process they only want to sell the properties
that's according for the michael smith we can't force the trees thank you at the and beneficiaries to be part of the process he followed the law to allow a landlord to do so but the planning commission was completely blowing me away where one the guy on the board clearly without judicial training i cannot evict the tenant i can't sleep at night. >> your time is up. >> all right. >> one question. >> yeah. >> the it wasn't quite clear from the analysis what was originally legal here as a two union. >> it's considered as also been on the record two pair the flats
there's an adjunct space if look at the record advertise used to be the shack in the back. >> i did not see that here. >> that of those in the belief. >> yeah. i obviously wanted to show you. >> we need clarification. >> i hear the question is the trustee was looking at looking to maximize the flat and the cottage as a second unit. >> oh, no. those are clearly to be two separate units the adjunct space. >> that's not my question. >> the value of a single-family home has a higher value than two
units. >> i know what the issue is what happened in the planning committee. >> that's not the question. >> but thank you. >> all right. all right. >> what they said was - >> excuse me. >> sold the property with units all right. >> mr. sanchez. >> batter up. >> good evening scott sanchez planning staff so the matter before i is a complicated issue i've heard from the first two speakers the subject property in an rh2 zoning that allows two family dwelling and it is an illegal unit and cottage in the rear that's the illegal unit that is they're seeking the removal the timeline is fiscally
correct a question filed and added on may 5th and sought the permit to remove the illegal unit on may 7th and there was a dbi enforcement case on the property from 2013, the reading through it briefing the containment was made and investigations were made and further discussions with the complainant and the complainant requested the complaint be withdrawn this was in 2013 and this was never followed through so what resulted in this permit to remove the illegal unit was not by anyone the permit was issued on may 7th and issued that seemed we are aware of our failure to provide notice under the d b n issued a suspension and no appeals were
filed that suspension remains in effect and separate from the appeal before you from the building it's the appeal was submitted on may 31st hass as part of the sphinx the permit we spent and do the d b n notification we've performed that and discretionary review was filed a hearing on that matter was held on october 23rd the department represents that the permit be allowed that removal of the illegal unit be made that's correct and those representations are correct the staff analyzed that that's a recommendation and the planning commission makes the decision on the discretionary review and i'm here to represent the actions of the planning commission so the planning
commission did take discretionary review and deny the permit and the basis for those finding is that this disapproval will preserve the affordable housing and the complaint or a violation the illegal unit does not prohibit the trustee not to sell the property it is correct the mayors directive explicit apply, however, the mayors derivative has tighter recommendations we may not initiate it the staff can and the planning commission has the level of discretion so what the issue is now how we will move forward and the planning commission has issued
their decision and there are questions about, of course, parts and all sorts of things certainly the permit holder can withdraw the permit you know there's a different burden when someone is come before the planning commission whether it's an approval or disapproval action because the need for go to overturn a decision so certainly they might not choose the path but refile and take an action to disapprove that action based on the discretionary review action what we'll suggest that this board grant the appeal and deny the permit and still allow them for them to refile they can refile the application we'll disapprove and be back before you but the burden this is the due process for the permit
holder because as it stands now the city is recommending days approval so they'll come before you and to overturn the planning commission actions finally another option we'd still have the suspension of this permit so even if the board were 90 to not took action the sphinx stands that's not appealed that could stand indefinitely not the opinion we could reissue that as a part of the revocation as the planning commission decision and the permit holder what appeal that to you in my mind the straightforward action to grant the appeal allow them
to refile and deny based on the planning commission decision i regret we're in this this is confusing bus there's issues regarding the process for all the parties here when a mistake is made like this this has happened a couple of times when a d b n we suspend the permit and allow them to go before the planning commission and then make any needed changes after the fact in this case that was a disapproval and the planning commission has different types of case not like there this will you cases the planning commission allows them to go ahead and not over and over riding the issues i think i've made thing more confusing but available for questions.
>> before we go through that procedural discussion then that would let itself i guess towards clarity is this a illegal - is the cottage an illegal or non-conforming unit. >> if it was a non-common unit this would be subject to planning code requirements for the removal of an illegal unit it perhaps is an illegal non-conforming unit because there's no permits we have but it exceeds the density in the rear yard. >> right but other situations we've had legal unknown conforming unit that exceed the city and in this case we don't have evidence - >> then at all? because we don't have motioning
information i don't have our dr analysis only the appellants dr application did the analysis show this is definitely >> the dr analysis my recollection states there's no evidence of it being an illegal third unit and it didn't appear that on the map and no building department records that's an important path to explore there are options to legalize under recent legislation to legalize units to let them have the legal unites like the rear yards. >> do we have my idea when this
cottage was constructed. >> i don't have a date, no i think the staff found if i recall the shed itself doesn't appear. >> that's my understanding. >> so let's go through what you done indicated procedurally is that the permit has been appealed but the suspension is not so that's stays in place no matter what our saying. >> correct that's my understanding i know defer to the deputy city attorney and the executive director but the suspension we issued a sphinx separately of the building permit prior to the appeal being filed by the
appellant and that request for suspension was never appealed and remains in effect i don't know that the boards action on the permit itself would override our request are for the suspension. >> i'm sorry, i think i missed why did you request the suspension. >> it was issued without the d b n in addition to filing the dr they also filled the appeal on the permit itself. >> but see the appellant then had some recourse because of our suspension process. >> at due process now the property owner has none. >> that's our concern so that's why we suggested they could withdraw the permit and request refund refile which will be
denied based on the boards decision and appeal back throw the board if the board failed to take an action tonight the permit is okay. >> that won't matter you've suspended it. >> that's right. >> simon the suspension remains in effect. >> we could play the planning commission. >> if the board upholds this permit that supercedes our order and the planning commission. >> i don't know. >> i'm not preempted to do that anyway. >> we could - >> i don't disagree. >> you don't disagree.
>> but there's nothing prohibiting us from issuing a question that's appealable perhaps. >> i could have revoked the permit that would have been the klein it process. >> thank you victor. >> but also revocation at that time, creates a burden on the permit holder. >> this has never happened in now 16 years the post issuance happen the planning commission upheld it not killed the permit. >> although we've had similar things if the gray areas vs. the cu vs. - >> we continue with the process eaten deal with this.
>> there's more. >> might as well. >> we're going to take an action or not (laughter). >> anything else mr. sanchez. >> no, i think we made the rest indication requests for the future. >> mr. duffy try and top that. >> due dare. >> just a fun fun fun night for us together it's confusing here we go from a building department point of view from dbi on the oirpsz of the permit there's nothing unusual on we got a suspension request and suspend it per planning department on 2014 because of the d b m i've not seen the plans i assume it's a 3 hundred there's permit for the kitchen sorry for the confusion.
>> we'll absolve you have any responsibility. >> okay. thank you any public comment? >> my name is norma a fwrin of the actual deceased owner i knew her over 11 years before she died you asked about the shack can i put this down so what we have is the assessors card what happened is hal la she died in jill of last year purchased the property with the shack back in 1954 an identification of it and the same map it doesn't show up in the 1998, however, there is a
notification of i'll explain how those shacks work all a thought victorians their 8 in a row as you can see there's 14567 okay count that one they extend out except hydralast this is the bathroom the adjunct says that the way the victorians it has a leadership and dining room and the bathroom in the rear and split in the early 19 one hundred and the 1rgz if they split they built a bedroom in the back she didn't have one this was added somewhere at
least back in 1954 the accessory identified it as a shack the reason we say that it says owner mothers lives in shack rear one thirty 1954 we were asked to get this information by the i forget the woman's name it says occupancy unknown what do we have to do to fix this she said get the assessors card and the waters information we said now what 0 do we have to do they said send a inspector they inspected and said that back space there's one meter for that unit and the top unit that's how it became part of the process we approached ms. miller and
offered her a buy out her response it's expensive to move that's not going to be enough you'll have to contact our attorney we were a little bit confused because it turns out this is a money issue she didn't want to live from what we're finding we don't have the area just trying to sell the property we were advised to do that i spoke with her and left her a long recording why this doesn't qualify. >> you're referring to we how are you associated. >> i'm a friend of hydrabeulah's and live in the building two doors down i helped hydrala i have a background with the city when she became ill.
>> you're doing this voluntarily. >> i'm not an heir i'm not getting money this is wrong we've done everything the city asked us to do and we find we've been told we have toling legalize this and now all the steps saying no. >> not on heir. >> so a personal question our a friend of mine of hydrala what would she be thinking this situation. >> she'd be turning in her gravy helped her when she was upstairs no one would rent upstairs she was a heavy smoker she was determined she would say our fired and she'd say i'll call you tomorrow. >> so she wouldn't have benefit
protective of her tenants. >> she said go to her on january 31st and offered her a location fee i wrote it down that that's not enough money it's expensive to move. >> thank you unfortunately. >> do you want any of this and no, thank you. >> i'm going to give it back to her. >> you can have some of these. >> is there any additional public comment so mr. crow will have rebuttal as soon as
space, in fact, viewing the planning commission hearing which i didn't attend i heard it suggested somehow my client was a lodgeer denied as living in the same space with the landlord this is not the case a separated space and cottage and my client has been living there and paying rent since 2006 sierra club you've heard a rehash of the arguments at the planning commission and the fact is that should 33 the permit holder want to appeal the planning commission decision those arguments are made then i only saw that brief today at 3 o'clock in the afternoon i s can agriculture a august the
planning commission look at the master plan and major goal is to save housing it doesn't have any complaints independence it the dbi come out there and refused to write a notice of violation and my clients subsequentially withdrew the complaint the permit holder doesn't said the process we certainly can't do that i listened carefully to mr. sanchez and said comments it's imperfect that i grant our appeal and then if the permit holders want to somehow appeal the planning commission decision we're happy to deal with that but at the same time our appraisal should be granted given the fact this is about
saving affordable housing in san francisco and the planning commission understood that. >> questions? >> ma'am, 3 minutes. >> the inspector for the planning committee who do the whole analysis approved the printed in the record permit based on the analyze it was at the hearing in which one particular commissioner decided it's all based on his political verifies of housing in san francisco is one thing i didn't point out but piloted later if that's the only reason why they discuss approve this to save one particular take the opportunity tenants from being displated
that's not the case why not sell her along with the property and the fact it will be sold at a lower value they didn't care it's an issue but the point is we the trustee doesn't want to sell this as a illegal property but the legal description i want to under the influence emphasis because the commissioners don't know the law like i do the truth is ms. miller is not a long term tenant over the age of 60 disabled i disabled, etc. she is not going to be able to stay in the unit all this high-minded affordable housing in san francisco preservation is not really promoted by the denial of this permit what is going to
happen the trustee is going to accepting sell this property at the lower value and whoever buys that can do on a eviction by spreading out into the unites so the whole idea of this timely thing in the name of affordable housing in san francisco we have to save this particular unit and save this tenant from displacement will not happen it will the property will be evaluated lower and the kaufks will the transferred to the buyer i don't think that is something that mr. dennis or whatever his name is if you vote against the recommendation of mr. smith you'll vote against